Let this be a lesson. After posts by John Gruber and Shawn King, this happened to Violet Blue. "The misinformation gave a significant number of people fuel to stalk me, attack me for hours at a time, malign, insult me in disgusting ways, threaten me with weapon-specific violent death (an axe), and lead social media attempts to force me to lose my job over the matter. Many referenced John Gruber, and/or his post as they did this. Plans were openly made to make media to attack me - another Angry Mac Bastards podcast." Disgusting story, and sadly enough, this isn't the first time this has happened, as Blue notes in her article. I don't like talking about these matters (you don't want to know the kind of crap that gets thrown my way at times), but I can assure you my inbox has seen its share of pure vitriol after Gruber links to an OSNews piece. It ain't pretty.

Or, if the issue is contentious, people will congregate into partisan online bubbles in which their views are reinforced. I don’t think a collective voice can be effective for many topics, such as history--and neither can a partisan mob. Collectives have a power to distort history in a way that damages minority viewpoints and calcifies the art of interpretation. Only the quirkiness of considered individual expression can cut through the nonsense of mob--and that is the reason intellectual activity is important.

No, Apple fanboys are by far the worst. Fans of other products usually can accept that others have different needs; Apple fanboys want Apple in Microsoft's position. The reason why is, of course, that being heavily invested in Apple products makes it very expensive to switch, and also that being heavily invested in Apple products kinda sucks in a world dominated by others than Apple. The sectarianism is designed into the products.

people will congregate into partisan online bubbles in which their views are reinforced

Anyway, most of the people I know that own Apple products in IRL aren't apple fanbois.

They are usually Young professionals, that want nice things, I am the only "PC" guy in the office of 100 people and I am also the only one that knows how to use a *nix terminal (which makes be the alpha geek). Most of them buy apple products because they are "cool" or they want something to spend their XMAS bonus on as a treat.

Also, people don't by into Apple's products, they buy into why Apple make the products as they do. Watch the Simon Sinek Video I linked.

No, they don't. If they did, you could for instance provide evidence that they did, which you didn't, as they don't. Try arguing rationally instead of making up conclusions based on no evidence and no logic whatsoever.

Anyway, most of the people I know that own Apple products in IRL aren't apple fanbois. They are usually Young professionals, that want nice things, I am the only "PC" guy in the office of 100 people and I am also the only one that knows how to use a *nix terminal (which makes be the alpha geek). Most of them buy apple products because they are "cool" or they want something to spend their XMAS bonus on as a treat.

I have different view of people that buy apple products:
- Spoiled kids who heard that iThings are the best
- Mediocre people who are desperate to get noticed, they keep flaunting their iThings and keep spreading iEvangelism
- An occasional normal/sane person who gets attracted by shiny design (btw this is the area where iThings are good at)
- A geek wannabe (I know one personaly)

---Back to topic---
This is not the first time that iFan sites have deliberately skewed the truth. It is the very definition of a fanboi not to care about facts or what the intended point was. If there is a chance that anything will effect public/online perception of anything i related, attacks will come in hard and en-masse.

***DISCLAIMER***
I do not claim to be objective as I have a deep dislike for Apple, which I consider one the most un-ethical corporations.

And most of these are quite harmless in themselves. If someone wants to show off their new Gadget and feel special for a bit, I honestly don't see the problem. I like to show off my new bicycle/pc/motorbike mod to my mates.

The problem is that when it turns almost religious. Me and my manager (Apple Fanboi) would regularly trade jibes at one another about Mac/Windows etc etc, in the same way my OpenBSD mate would trade jokes about respective OSes.

I trade jokes with a friend of mine, she is a tri-athlete, the joke is that tri-athletes fall off their bikes more often than "real" road cyclists like myself.

However I have met those that are zealot like in their opinions In Real Life and I normally take the piss until they storm off.

Anyway back OT.

Yes some iFan websites probably do skew topics. But there are probably examples in pretty much any online community.

There are always going to be people that act like sheep online, irrespective on whether they own Apple products or not.

And most of these are quite harmless in themselves. If someone wants to show off their new Gadget and feel special for a bit, I honestly don't see the problem. I like to show off my new bicycle/pc/motorbike mod to my mates. The problem is that when it turns almost religious.

I agree completely! I couldn't care less what gadget one is using as long as they go about their business. It is when people start spreading brand evangelism that I get irritated. And idealizing a brand?? C'mon, please spare me.

I trade jokes with a friend of mine, she is a tri-athlete, the joke is that tri-athletes fall off their bikes more often than "real" road cyclists like myself.

I, too, trade jokes with a friend of mine, he is a scratch golfer and whenever he comments on my golf swing (which is terrible btw) I remind him of judo tournamnets that I've won. I guess what I trying to say is that: tri-athletes are good at a number of things while road cyclists only in one.

The problem is that when it turns almost religious. Me and my manager (Apple Fanboi) would regularly trade jibes at one another about Mac/Windows etc etc, in the same way my OpenBSD mate would trade jokes about respective OSes.

We need a better definition here. You need a religion that is willing to attack people and lie for the "Truth." Specifically, we are talking about a kind of politicized fundamentalism here. An example from my own religious background of Christianity. There are Christians who dislike Darwin's theory of evolution, and misrepresent it, either deliberately, or through an ignorance that frankly doesn't place a high value on accuracy. Further, they then attack the character of those they perceive as enemies of the faith.

Contrast this with other religious people, who actually value truth telling highly. In the computer sphere, I would consider a high number of Linux users to be followers of a religion. It's a religion that emphasizes certain values like freedom, sharing, stewardship, and community. It is a community that has its zealots, like me, who seek to spread Linux awareness and use, but that's a long way from "lying for the sake of the Truth."

There are always going to be people that act like sheep online, irrespective on whether they own Apple products or not.

I don't think the people described by Violet Blue are acting like sheep. They are acting like a mob targeting an enemy. Sheep don't do this. They band together for protection. These guys want to intimidate, kill and destroy. They don't want protection; they want power.

I have different view of people that buy apple products:
- Spoiled kids who heard that iThings are the best
- Mediocre people who are desperate to get noticed, they keep flaunting their iThings and keep spreading iEvangelism
- An occasional normal/sane person who gets attracted by shiny design (btw this is the area where iThings are good at)
- A geek wannabe (I know one personaly)

Of course, you're better than those chumps! Of course if I had the same opinion of you for using brand X, I'd be a frothing idiot fanboi!

Of course, you're better than those chumps! Of course if I had the same opinion of you for using brand X, I'd be a frothing idiot fanboi!

You may indeed call me a fanboi! I am a staunch supporter of linux. I donate my time and money (modestly) for the cause. What you and most people do not seem to get, is that, when it comes to oss it is a philosophy that we support, not a brand. A valiant idea of software being free and accesible, and not identifying with a shiny plastic/aluminium gadget.

" Of course, you're better than those chumps! Of course if I had the same opinion of you for using brand X, I'd be a frothing idiot fanboi!

You may indeed call me a fanboi! I am a staunch supporter of linux. I donate my time and money (modestly) for the cause. What you and most people do not seem to get, is that, when it comes to oss it is a philosophy that we support, not a brand. A valiant idea of software being free and accesible, and not identifying with a shiny plastic/aluminium gadget.

Of course I am *better* "

See, you're making the classic mistake. You're not better, you're just bigoted.

Of course, you're better than those chumps! Of course if I had the same opinion of you for using brand X, I'd be a frothing idiot fanboi!

Generalizations are not reality, but generalizations do contain a kernel of (distorted) truth. The generalization about Apple users takes the worst attributes of part of the iCrowd and condenses it into a grotesque charicature.

There are probably millions of Apple customers silently enjoying their Apple kit and going about their own business. It's the iFan crowd, the group that latches on too desperately to the Apple marketing message of "hip, cool, different", who portray the worst kind of behavior.

Any time a person with a lack of selfworth and a craving for acknowledgement tries to escape that horrid condition by substituting selfworth and personality with external possesions, you end up with an unbearable, vapid idiot. It's not exclusively connected to Apple or electronics. It also manifests itself in clothing, cars, sporting goods, etc.

Maybe you've never encountered them, but they all roughly have the same M.O. The < insert item X of brand Y here > is so much better than < insert item A of brand B here >. I couldn't do without. It really changed my life. Maybe you should get one too! All the while waving the "magical" thingamajig in your face and forcing attention on it. They have to do that, because the assumed "magic" is contained in the thing and not the person. The vapid idiot hopes that some of the magic will be associated to him/her by virtue of owning it.

I have different view of people that buy apple products:
- Spoiled kids who heard that iThings are the best
- Mediocre people who are desperate to get noticed, they keep flaunting their iThings and keep spreading iEvangelism
- An occasional normal/sane person who gets attracted by shiny design (btw this is the area where iThings are good at)
- A geek wannabe (I know one personaly)

And oddly this group of people seem to be growing by tens of millions every year. How odd. I wonder what caused that?

No, Apple fanboys are by far the worst. Fans of other products usually can accept that others have different needs; Apple fanboys want Apple in Microsoft's position. The reason why is, of course, that being heavily invested in Apple products makes it very expensive to switch, and also that being heavily invested in Apple products kinda sucks in a world dominated by others than Apple. The sectarianism is designed into the products.

I take it you haven't had to ever deal with the rabid Linux fanboys. They're just as bad and sometimes worse. We've got some of them on OSNews, just start criticizing Linux (not senselessly, but accurately) and you'll see them pop out of the woodwork. The GPL zealots are nasty too. It's unfortunate, but zealots exist in just about every category of life and I don't find even the worst tech fanboys to be as bad as, let's say, the religious fanatics who would happily kill me because my skin is the wrong color. It would be best, I think, if everyone involved in this whole thing would take a step back, have a beer and a smoke and calm the hell down. The tech fanboys (and fangirls) are just assholes, and there are people far worse than assholes out there.

if everyone involved in this whole thing would take a step back, have a beer and a smoke and calm the hell down. The tech fanboys (and fangirls) are just assholes, and there are people far worse than assholes out there.

As well as the Android crowd. I have a bunch of Android fanboi in my Google+ stream, and the daily barrage of anti-Apple shite that is posted gets super annoying. Please note that I am not accusing any one of these groups as being any worse than the other - they're equally as bad IMO, and actually do more to hurt their platform of choice than help.

Of course, it's just like politics - liberals vs conservatives, too many people screaming at each other instead of actually listening to each other, and it is never going to stop.

The tech fanboys (and fangirls) are just assholes, and there are people far worse than assholes out there.

Most tech people, even those in professional positions, also play with tech as a hobby. All hobbies have genuinely nice people just as they also have assholes. It is most noticeable with technology, imho, because the internet allows people to hide behind the safety of their internet connection.

There are assholes that hike, hunt, fish, bird watch, tinker with cars, etc. Most of them appear rather mild, though, because most people aren't going to start a huge debate that ends with them frothing at the mouth spewing personal threats in real life. It is simple to get carried away online, though, especially if the person typing is immature. There is also a problem with written communication lacking any sense of emphasis or tone, which can result in someone misunderstanding a point or taking offense to something that wasn't meant offensively, which makes the matter even worse.

The only problem is that they weren't talking about apple product, but a supposed third-party apple developer... that wasn't a developer at all.
Here it's only a matter of checking the reality before making claims...
like the author of the original article did...

The original article did not attack the indavidual person's character but rather used a business representation as an example of something they suggested was common across multiple business representations. This one sad booth babe is an example of the many sad booth babes here today.. sort of thing.

After the issue became focused on the single indavidual, the article author went back to follow up; find out about the indavidual and contact them in a civil manner to discuss any potential wrong doing.

Did Gruber and King followup and provide facts? Did Gruber and King provide a follow-up article saying "yeah, we where in error that first time around, here's what the correct information we've since verified"?

So sure, attack the ZD author for not showing scientific accuracy with information tangent to the article topic. Yet, don't hold Gruber and King accountable for not validating information the first tiem around and never following-up after the fact? Did you even read the article?

The original article did not attack the indavidual person's character but rather used a business representation as an example of something they suggested was common across multiple business representations.

How should I put this...oh yeah...bull shit.

This one sad booth babe is an example of the many sad booth babes here today.. sort of thing.

That's like me taking a picture of a random, seemingly happy woman in the street and posting it online with the title "Happy hooker". I'm pretty sure that person wouldn't be very flattered or like to be seen as a business representation for that.

The problem is notoriously just as common in the Linux community. Probably worse because of Linux's humanitarian ideals.
A recent happening. The acrimony levelled against this journalist was especially bad. (See comment to the article)

Even if the journalist was wrong the problem is how some people deal with criticism. Fanboyism take on some tribal barbarity and criticism is perceived as a personal affront. Football is probably the worse example.

The problem is that any criticism of Linux is (however valid) is basically akin to insulting that persons mother. If you bring up the stable ABI/API issue, there are all sorts of excuses and the fabricated.

The problem that really frustrates me that because they won't take any criticism, they will never improve it.

The same is in the Gamer Community, the cycling community (some Mountain Bikers won't ever ride a road bike because it is almost a religious issue, I get called a lot of names because I ride a fixed occasionally, even though I been riding them since I was 14), I am sure there are other examples.

Yeah, that's especially a problem around projects like Gnome and KDE - distinguishing between the people who actually work on the projects, and the partisan supporters who don't.

The former group tend to be fairly rational about the whole thing - at worst, the odd snarky blog post, complaining about lack of cooperation from their rivals.

Unfortunately, the latter group include some of the most rabid individuals on earth, seemingly believing that their chosen desktop is the One True Way, and that the other (and those who support it) must be the work of Satan. And these people unfortunately get seen as representative of the projects, despite being something of an embarrassment to the developers.

In all the fairness, I think that the longest ongoing debate is on the matter of ...*drum roll please* ... text editors. vi vs. eMac is a never ending debate that caused broken families, long standing friendships to come to an abrupt end, children revolting against their parents, and so on, and so on ...

In all the fairness, I think that the longest ongoing debate is on the matter of ...*drum roll please* ... text editors. vi vs. eMac is a never ending debate that caused broken families, long standing friendships to come to an abrupt end, children revolting against their parents, and so on, and so on ...

Yeah, but that one's died down a bit in recent years. Gnome vs KDE (and to a lesser degree, vs Unity) is still running hot, though more recently iOS vs Android has attracted many of the fanatics (hence this article).

The problem is that any criticism of Linux is (however valid) is basically akin to insulting that persons mother. If you bring up the stable ABI/API issue, there are all sorts of excuses and the fabricated.

The problem that really frustrates me that because they won't take any criticism, they will never improve it.

The same is in the Gamer Community, the cycling community (some Mountain Bikers won't ever ride a road bike because it is almost a religious issue, I get called a lot of names because I ride a fixed occasionally, even though I been riding them since I was 14), I am sure there are other examples.

You must have some powerful legs and tough as hell shin bones. I tried riding a friends fixed wheel with no brakes. never again. I leave that for the brave.

The problem is that any criticism of Linux is (however valid) is basically akin to insulting that persons mother. If you bring up the stable ABI/API issue, there are all sorts of excuses and the fabricated.

The problem that really frustrates me that because they won't take any criticism, they will never improve it.

Ah, you're singling out of Linux, how surprising.

Of course the truth is that there's the diehard fans in all these camps, Linux, BSD, Apple, Microsoft, they may be disproportional to their user numbers, for instance I think their are much less percentages of Windows users who are diehard fans then there are of operating system with much smaller userbases like Linux, BSD and OSX, but they do exist which you are ample proof of.

And just as diehard fans of any other OS/vendor, you will jump in and defend Microsoft in just about every situation and not accept criticism.

The reason why I think there are lesser (proportionally) diehard fans of Microsoft is because with the other OS'es the users actively seek them out (as in consciously choosing them) rather than having it come as a standard part of their computer purchase.

Of course the truth is that there's the diehard fans in all these camps, Linux, BSD, Apple, Microsoft, they may be disproportional to their user numbers, for instance I think their are much less percentages of Windows users who are diehard fans then there are of operating system with much smaller userbases like Linux, BSD and OSX, but they do exist which you are ample proof of.

The thing is I will keep pointing this out, I used Linux from 2003-2009 and I also used IRIX until 2005, mainly for Matlab and Ansys.

I own 2 PCs, 1 which runs OpenBSD and the other Windows 7, another media PC that runs Fedora 15 (I think) and another laptop that runs XP.

To claim I am a fanboy is when the 50% of my machines don't run Windows is quite funny.

I think you confuse things such as

"I don't understand why someone would buy a Windows Tablet and Run Linux on it" as fanboyism.

And just as diehard fans of any other OS/vendor, you will jump in and defend Microsoft in just about every situation and not accept criticism.

TBH 50% of the time I am trolling mainly because if anything about Microsoft is mentioned you will get some idiot chiming about it being unstable, slow etc etc.

50% of the time I am serious. I have admined Linux Servers as job for about 9 months and everything worked fine. It is great for hosting LAMP, RoR.

However I personally like working with VS and SQL Server, and to some point I do evangelise it ... because I think it is good.

The reason why I think there are lesser (proportionally) diehard fans of Microsoft is because with the other OS'es the users actively seek them out (as in consciously choosing them) rather than having it come as a standard part of their computer purchase.

This is partially it, however many people when it comes to alternative operating systems have made an emotional investment in it, and it becomes the one true way.

Issue with extremists is that they are louder, and give little argument (and it helps them being oppressed).

Of course depending on you experience you learn to deal with it (see Nintendo vs Sega, xbox vs playstation 3, Atari ST vs Amiga). I can admit that I have been an hardcore fanboy, and to some extend still am one.

Unfortunately, Apple could have the longest history of having an opinionated community.

But really, isn't that fanboyism some vent for our frustration and anger (which is better than, say pointing a gun and shooting randomly at people).

Disclaimer: subjective long time windows user that have moved to linux (at least at my home computers), and working with one mac mini that I look with disdain and work with while being frustrated by it. Only own a "featured" phone, that can already do TV/Radio/Map navigation, but being compeled to buy a less featured Android smartphone(damn those ads!) .

This happens all the time and certainly isn't specific to Apple. So many times when misinformation is published, the online mob immediately takes justice into their own hands and starts going after who they perceive as the bad guy, whether it's true or not. This has happened countless times and has no correlation with Apple or any other specific company.

This kind of attack appeals to the Internet’s root nastiness toward women

Sorry, it isn't. It actually stems from misguided chivalry (jumping to the defence of a supposed slighted female developer).

Also many examples of this kind of thing against males. The most recent being the Penny Arcade/Ocean Marketing debacle where the wrath of the mob was directed at Paul. It's a bit different in that Paul really was asking for it, but does a customer support mishap deserve death threats and spam and all that goes with the online mob? Of course not. It's the same thing here and has nothing to do with women or men.

Chivalry (derives from the French term for horseman) is the traditional code of conduct associated with the medieval institution of knighthood. It was originally conceived of as an aristocratic warrior code involving individual training and service to others. Over time its meaning has been refined to emphasize more ideals such as knightly virtues, honour and courtly love, and less the martial aspects of the tradition.

When examining medieval literature, chivalry can be classified into three basic but overlapping areas:

Duties to countrymen and fellow Christians: this contains virtues such as mercy, courage, valor, fairness, protection of the weak and the poor, and in the servant-hood of the knight to his lord. This also brings with it the idea of being willing to give one’s life for another’s; whether he would be giving his life for a poor man or his lord.

Duties to God: this would contain being faithful to God, protecting the innocent, being faithful to the church, being the champion of good against evil, being generous and obeying God above the feudal lord.

Duties to women: this is probably the most familiar aspect of chivalry. This would contain what is often called courtly love, the idea that the knight is to serve a lady, and after her all other ladies. Most especially in this category is a general gentleness and graciousness to all women.

Says nothing about honour, it is more about a code of conduct.

The General idea here is not to be a dick and try to protect people, against dickheads ... nothing more or less.

And if you think they are bad values ... well I think you need to get your head checked.

I understand what you are trying to say. Some misogynists blanket their stupidity by calling it chivalry.

I have an idiot friend who's quite conservative in his beliefs. Almost Amish in his outlook. He sent an Email out to all of our female friends, who are pretty darned conservative by today's standards but less so than him obviously. His email was basically a critique of their dress and encouraged them to stop wearing pants and start wearing dresses that would obscure them from neck to ankle so they could attract a suitable husband.

Now, he thought he was being chivalrous, but really he just called all of them sluts.

This happens all the time and certainly isn't specific to Apple. So many times when misinformation is published, the online mob immediately takes justice into their own hands and starts going after who they perceive as the bad guy, whether it's true or not. This has happened countless times and has no correlation with Apple or any other specific company.

Except for the fact that Apple fanboys were notorious for the same sort of behavior at least as far back as the early 90s, long before the rise of the "internet haet machine". Ask anyone who read computing magazines in those days - if a magazine published ANYTHING negative about Apple or an Apple product, they were bombarded with "fanboy rage" letters.

Right, I'll just head over to Google and hunt up the letters pages from magazines published 15-20 years ago, most of which are now defunct and/or never published letters to the editor online. Oh, wait...

Though, if you like, I could mail you a few dozen old issues of Byte, PC Magazine, Wired, etc - COD, of course. I promise not to include any issues of Business 2.0 or National Geographic just to inflate the shipping weight, honest.

I realize people will quickly dismiss this issue, but there are 2 importants items in this post:

1. Bloggers are partially responsible for their legions. No, bloggers are not responsible for everything there legions do, but when they expressly point them towards someone and mutter "sic-em", they are morally, if not legally responsible for the mayhem they know is going to occur. I think of the targets sights Sarah Palin placed over the Representatives she wanted removed. No, you are not legally responsible for the mayhem, but I believe you do bear moral responsibility for the chaos that ensues.

2. The bigger issue is the way women are treated on the NET. There is still a large contingent of testosterone-laden idiots who are waiting to destroy some "babe" when the chance arises. Obviously, growing up is one option - but one that may never come. Instead, we all need to look for those occasions when people are being abusive to anyone, can report them, call them out, etc. Don't be silent on this issue, or quickly dismiss it. People have been known to committ suicide due to this kind of Internet Carpet Bombing. Report it immediately.

I'm guessing you didn't even read the posts Thom conveniently forgot to reference? In no way did they "pick on" (diddums) women. The issue stemmed from Violet's trademark bad journalism. Here, let me direct you to a post that will shed some light on this for you:

I am Zsófia Rutkai the WOMAN on the picture. I am a junior producer working for NeoPlay Entertainment on World Factor Show and Polgár Judit’s Chess Playground. I am the one who runs production. I am responsible for public communication, international relations and press releases. (my last goal succeeded better as we expected.):)

I’d like to thank you all who stood up for me without knowing me. Good to know that the majority of the Mac community is tolerant and aware of human rights. I’ve never thought about being a model or booth babe but seeing the bright side of the story it can be considered as a compliment.

Forgetting about the case which is beyond funny do me a favor and categorize our apps instead. Go to our website www.neo-play.com.

Contact Piroska Szurmai-Palotai who is a developer and internationally recognized chess player at palotaipiroska@t-online.hu or find the saddest booth babe on facebook.

I'm guessing you didn't even read the posts Thom conveniently forgot to reference? In no way did they "pick on" (diddums) women. The issue stemmed from Violet's trademark bad journalism. Here, let me direct you to a post that will shed some light on this for you:.... You may continue with your irrational hatred now

No they did pick on a woman! I am not aware of Violet's trademark bad journalism, but from reading her account of events it seems pretty obvious as to what took place.I am curious, if she is a "Trademark bad journalist" then what attributes can you subscribe to gruber and king? Surely not journalism (not even bad one)? And while you ponder on that, please enlighten us, what is so irrational in despising people who use social media to spread false stories?

This is neither the fault of Gruber nor King. Blue for seemingly no reason decided to take a photo of a female employee manning her company's booth and use it to characterise her as a sexual object used to sell products. WTF?

She misused her pulpit as a journalist in order to pick on someone. She should get called out for it. While death threats and things of the like are uncalled for, Gruber and King are in no way to blame for that. They simply took her task for something a journalist should get taken to task for and were in no way inciteful with their comments.

It reminds me back to school somehow, when it was a certain brand of shoes or a special kind of tick like sticker collections. Its pretty much the same social behavior people are following nowadays with apple products. Yeah, Apple stuff isnt appealing to the most old scool IT nerds but they have their own crowd.

I even know older people having a smartphone now (iPhone),defying IT technology for YEARS (they never even had an old mobile phone).

That proves to me that Apple does something quite right, like good quality in their stuff (i was quite amazed with their Laptops so far) and a really nice user experience (GUI, Look and feel and such).

But! There is still no execuse to rub your shitty iPhone every time we talk under my nose! No, im not fucking envious about that totally useless iPad.
And for fucks sake i dont need to know your iPod playlist.

I didnt mind Apple before their sect minions started to spread the word and spouting technical nonsense.
Bashing other technology blindly is something that deserves hating.

It is a kind of opposite. The "funboy" wording is an attempt to insult opponents and diminish their opinion before discussion starts. It is like naming of opponents "these idiots" or "religious fanatics". So, any article which mention "funboy", either Apple or Linux or Microsoft, is playing dirty games and does not worth to be read.

While Apple does have some fanatic followers, they're not alone. The same applies to any community, really. I've been writing in the Linux/open source/BSD community for a while and the same attacks mentioned in the above article match my experience with Linux users perfectly. Angry messages, harassment, threats of violence.... There are angry nut jobs in every community. In fact, looking over the comments to this article sort of proves that.

That really just sounds like you're trying to lead credence to what you are about to say about a group, without really admitting to be a member of them. Like a condensing anthropologist writing about a group of indigenous peoples.

Yeah, auto correct. I changed it so its not underlined in red. What more could you want from me?

Also, is a condensing Anthropologist one that condenses himself or his subjects? For my amusement, I'll assume both. He/she'd come down from a fog condense himself then scoop up the village and remove the water from it and stuff it in a red and white can.

Condensed Village of the Amazon

Directions:

Add 1 cup of water and warm in medium saucepan over medium heat with occasional stirring.

Note: For Best results, do not microwave. Microwaving may result in premature delivery of any pregnant women and a rubbery texture.

Anyone who remembers when Nicholas Negroponte used to write for Wired probably also remembers the response when he announced that he was switching from Macs to Windows PCs. He literally received death threats over that.

There is one bright side, though. The more success Apple gets, the more obnoxious their fanboys get - and the more obnoxious the fanboys get, the more damage it does to the public perception of Apple. And at the end of the day, perception is what Apple is really selling.

Oh, and speaking of Apple fanboys, it looks like Mrhasbean has resurfaced yet again - this time, on arstechnica. But the really hilarious part? Not only is he an obsessive iFanboy, but it turns out that he's a Creatard to boot! (or and IDiot, it's hard to tell)

...Then Apple fanboys are the Apple anti-fanboys... They know exactly who all Apple iOwners are and pigeon hole them just as bad as the Apple fanboys! Get off your high horses and look in the freak'n mirror to find your closest anti-Apple ass hole.

Get off your high horses and look in the freak'n mirror to find your closest anti-Apple ass hole.

Since I have publicly declared that I consider apple un-ethical, I definately fall in anti-apple group. I do think that I will need to mirrors to have a look at my ass hole, though. I don't see the point of looking at ass hole, though, I usually use it for some other function.

Joking aside, I have and will always publicly point out that all apple consumers support a corporation which is operated under un-ethical principles and supplies products which are of (accornding to my criteria) subpar qualities. I will never entice anyone to attack anyone nor will I threaten anybody with an axe or any other weapon, unless my own security has been threatened. I will not skew facts nor will I state for a fact something that I am not so sure about. Which can not be said for Grubers and Kings of this world!!!

Based on my criteria and experience with >25 Apple devices over the years, they are far superior to the PC/Android echo system in my opinion.

While I also feel Apple does some things that are board line, or outright unethical, there are no corporations in the phone/music-player/computer industry that is significantly (or noticeably) better than Apple.

As a stock holder I vote in the direction that takes them in the correct (moral) direction.

Most anti-Apple people I've dealt with on-line are just as bad or worse as the ones they criticize.

I've been a OSS developer and user for the better part of 17 years (1995ish, Linux & FreeBSD mostly) and the BSD roots of OSX and iOS have always appealed to me. While I don't like Apples heavy hand in the apps store, I understand it and have accepted the filter they provide and to date, have not had any issues with it (or crap/mal-ware).

"But as Shawn King points out in the comments under the photo, the woman in question doesn’t look anything at all like a “booth babe” — she simply looks like a developer who happens to be a woman manning her booth. And according to subsequent comments by Tim Breen, that’s exactly what she is:"

That's it, go ahead and click through and read. People who use a post like that as ammunition to make hysterical or threatening comments aren't "fanboys" of Apple or anyone else, they are simply pathetic human beings.

For an anti-Apple troll I seem to be sending them money pretty consistently. Probably more than most.

If "being critical of a company's patent abuse" means I'm an "anti-Apple troll" then, well, I think we know what camp you belong in. The fact that I condemn Microsoft for the exact same behaviour is something your cognitive dissonance conveniently ignores, right?

For an anti-Apple troll I seem to be sending them money pretty consistently. Probably more than most. "

Which is completely irrelevant. Trolls post inflammatory comments to provoke. John Grubor and Shawn King point out that Violet Blue made a fairly ignorant comment and provided the evidence to prove it was an ignorant comment. That is completely normal behavior. Now, you and Violet Blue are making inflammatory comments intended to provoke by blaming "Apple fanboys" for something. Thus, trolls. If you don't like the label don't wear it so proudly when you link to "stories" like this one.

Which is completely irrelevant. Trolls post inflammatory comments to provoke. John Grubor and Shawn King point out that Violet Blue made a fairly ignorant comment and provided the evidence to prove it was an ignorant comment.

True, but they got the information wrong too. They completely misidentified the person in the photograph.

Not completely misidentified. They said this is person X from company Y while it in fact was person Z from company Y. Plus they apologized. Not nearly as bad as calling that person a booth babe (implying airhead bimbo) and not apologizing.

Not completely misidentified. They said this is person X from company Y while it in fact was person Z from company Y. Plus they apologized. Not nearly as bad as calling that person a booth babe (implying airhead bimbo) and not apologizing.

A) How about you read the original article to see what she meant. She actually explains it in the foot note.
B) VioletBlue actually apologised to both and the apology was unnecessary, as it happens. As the two people referenced were not offended.
C) No matter what you say, it's was Shawn and Gruber that stirred up the whole thing. Otherwise it would have been just a simple blog post.

She sat on a stool in between two large monitors across the aisle from us. The pretty brunette was in one of those big corner booths that paid a few bucks for that sorta-prime real estate you know is a gamble for whoever forked over the money to sell wignuts or widgets or iPhone cases or other sundry USB landfill.

Her shoulders were hunched and her hands sat limply in her lap beneath breasts that were packaged air-tight in a tight, branded t-shirt.

She stared at the floor. Unlike her counterparts, she never smiled. Sad booth babe was sad.

I still don't understand how Violet's original text led to this much hate and vitriol.

My best guess: geek men who think women need protecting. Here's a little nugget of knowledge from someone who has always preferred hanging out with women instead of guys, and from someone whose best friend is a girl: women don't need protecting. At all. There is nothing more sexist than guys jumping to someone's defence just because that someone is a woman.

Those guys are the reason women tend to be so rare in geek circles.

Calling a woman a babe, chick, or whatever is not, by definition, sexist. In most contexts, it's perfectly innocent and acceptable - especially in the context of Violet's piece. She was at a booth. She was a babe (as far as I can judge). Thus, she's a booth babe. The lady in question was clear in her conversation with Violet: she didn't find it offensive at all.

All these Grubers, Kings & Co. trying to justify the kind go treatment Violet got sicken me. If you think its okay for Violet to receive threats of violence and other abuse just because she - accurately - called someone a booth babe, then there's something seriously wrong with your brain and/or your morals.

Judging by the following bit from Shawn's latest article, referring to Violet stating she never met Shawn:

"I'm sorry that I made so little an impression on Violet when we met at a Macworld a few years ago. We were even in a movie together...at different times."

I wouldn't be surprised if Shawn's simply a little bit peeved about Violet not remembering who he was, and that he was hurt in his male pride.

Her own account of being attacked, personally attacked, is trolling?
And demanding an apology to a person that was not in fact the person in the picture is "normal"?

Read the most condescending post by Shawn on the topic.
I dare you to say that the title is not condescending "Violet. Violet. Violet..."

I don't really care what kind of fanboi you are, or even is you are one. But even for implying that she got what she was asking for is idiotic.

PS: Her original post was a plain account of her visit to Macworld. By her account, I would even love to visit that convention. However after the "booth babe" sh**tstorm was blown up by Shawn King and Gruber she started getting angry posts and letters.

PPS: Gruber and Shawn King have to apologise for spreading lies as well. Not just the laconic Gruber's update on his post.

And you're an Apple fanboi. That reacts negatively even when facts about Apple are presented in a neutral manner. Because apparently there is a need to present anything about Apple in a positive light only.

Violet outright miscategorized someone in a rather sexist way (ironic), gets called out on it and then tries to twist this as mere Apple fanboyism in action rather than to apologize for her mistake and her lack of research. The sad thing is that there's plenty of people who just want additional validation of their opinions of anyone with an Apple product, so this is an excellent distraction from what actually happened.

As you can see right here, some folks already are taking it hook, line and sinker. This story has nothing to do with Apple fans, merely Violet not wanting to be criticized for her actions in any context.

And just how do you envision calling out someone with a fabricated swan story?? The girl on the photo is not a developer. Never was, maybe one day she will be. What she was (on the photo), is ample chested and in a tight shirt, and a PR person. To top it all, they (shaw and the co.) didn't get her identity right. So how is this OK, and stating obvious facts (sad, ample chested, tight shirt) is not???

I certainly have. What I find interesting here is you're not confronting the fact that someone is assigning a mood to someone else based upon the fact she's not smiling. Or the very notion that it's okay to assign descriptors as a matter of 'fact' just because a woman is endowed.

Do you have any idea how often women are told to 'smile' because they look 'glum' if they're not smiling? Seriously, you need to really consider how you assign values to someone based upon a single photo without context.

And just what did you expect with a nickname like that? Your highness??

I would suggest you clear in your mind the difference between sexist and stereotype. There is a simple reason for this, namely when you attribute someone's function based on the looks is called stereotyping regardless of sex. Lets se what a stereotype of a "booth babe" is:
- Attractive (Check)
- Dressed in a way to emphasize appearance (Check)

As for the "sad" speculation, it is assumed that on an exhibition people participating smile and look upbeat for the purpose of inviting interaction, therefore when someone doesn't smile and looksdejected one makes an assumption that person in question is sad. Nothing sexist about being sad, is there? What would be sexist is claiming that women can anly be booth babes. Notice any difference.

How come you are not reacting to the fact that gruber & king fabricated the swan story. After all they launched their attack based on the fact that blue didn't do her due dilligence and yet they did far worse then her???

Right off the bat here:
- Dressed in a way to emphasize appearance (Check)

You seriously can't see the sexism in what you're saying here? You genuinely believe that a moderately tight long-sleeved shirt is 'stereotypical' booth babe attire?

Anyway:

Gruber and King taking a comment someone else left misidentifying a person as fact is indeed 'wrong' (and something they both acknowledged once the person was properly identified), however it doesn't detract from the actual situation that Violet took a photo of someone she didn't even bother to speak to then posted a bit in an article assigning 'sad' and 'booth babe' to her based upon her physical endowments and the fact she was not smiling at that exact moment. She could not even be bothered to properly photograph the subject in question and I'm not surprised someone misidentified her.

The fact of the matter is, Violet was acting as a journalist at this event. She didn't even speak to the person. She didn't bother to get a name. She saw someone not smiling, sitting in a booth next to other vendors and took a quick little snap and expanded it with conjecture later.

Then next time you see someone with a face expression resembling the following or ;( you shouldn't assume that someone is sad. Or will you assume it? Because I can bet that you will. Humans use facial expressions to indicate emotional states and they are universal.

Why is it that a tight shirt automatically means someone is a 'booth babe'?

Facial expressions are far from universal, especially when judging strangers. One person's neutral facial expression could look like someone else's frown -- not to mention, you're still not able to accurately judge someone's emotional state on the basis of just a frown, certainly not to the point where you can label someone 'sad' unless you are very familiar with the person. We're not discussing someone bawling their eyes out here, we're talking about a rather passive expression that was evaluated here and then used to describe someone as 'saddest'.

The fact that you argue that you can accurately label people using the same scant details Violet did, while speaking for not only myself but the whole human race as you claim 'everyone does this' and that facial expressions are 'universal' is something perhaps you better spend more time reflecting upon, because you're going to come away wrong in a number of situations if that's how you go about sizing people up.

As to your latter half of your reply -- you really should stop and think for a moment about what you're doing here. Look at the picture again. This is a woman who is dressed in pants, wearing a long-sleeve shirt and layered on top is another shirt. There's not much skin exposed, it's only a bit snug. This is the only criterion you are using to immediately brand the woman as the derogatory term 'booth babe', dismissing any possibility that she's contributing anything to her company other than eye-candy for men. Do you not see a problem with this? Do you actually feel this is how women should be evaluated in conferences?

Given how you've already stated you feel everyone in PR who is female is automatically a 'booth babe', I know this is already a futile conversation -- but there's one thing I'm begging you to ask yourself here:

How would you ask a woman to dress at a conference so that she may avoid this association? Do you think it's fair that a woman has to consider these things in the first place?

Fandom has created some pretty rabid communities over the years, but my personal top two would have to be Apple and Sony.

That's not to say that no other communities have their barbs it's just that these two companies crap in their consumers faces for so much i can't understand why their fans aren't cutting themselves instead of threatening others...

I"m no Apple fanboy, quite the opposite (which should be obvious by now) but what in the holy hell?
Gruber may be an ass (or not, I don't know him personally) and a "fanboi" but in no way is he (or this Shawn guy) in the wrong here. They corrected someone who used the degrading term "booth babe" about someone who isn't. The person in question thanked Shawn (and maybe Gruber too)for standing up for her.
So, uh, how does any of this make you one of the bad guys? Really, I'd like to know.

It's also painfully obvious how many people here that didn't even bother reading anything of the original material.

I'm not sure what's worse... That people are dumb enough to emotionally attach themselves to companies, pledging their allegiance, and possibly willing to harm others... Or that this topic has generated 8 pages of replies in under 24 hours.

Things can pretty much be summed up as follows:

Stop being mindless sheep.

Stop catching feelings for companies - you'll only become the abused girlfriend in the end.

Grow the f... up.

The above isn't directed towards anyone in particular, it's more of a general response to people who find themselves with raging hard-ons for/over stupid shit.

No argument here. I've seen this with this attitude also over particular computing hardware/brands, as well as video game systems.

I am absolutely amazed by how emotionally attached some people are to these things, particularly as a consumer of a product. I'm sure for XYZ company, it's great to have fans (or in this case zealots) but, to me, this is a little scary. I don't dare go into the psychology of it all but, when I read things like this, I believe a person may be in need of some human interaction.

I am a techie, both in my work and personal life but, I own tech, not the other way around.